KIRBY ESTATE Marvel Copyright Appeal Denied Again

[Aman619]

My two cents. I like Jack Kirby's art and plotting for Marvel. There's no denying his contributions to "The Marvel Age" of comics but he was no businessman. A verbal ageement isn't worth anything. When Jack saw his artwork being used to promote toys, games, action figures, posters, etc. and he wasn't getting paid for it, he felt abused and cheated out of his just compensation. He eventually decided not to use any new creations and or plot stories for Marvel anymore. When Jack Schiff left DC, it opened the door for him to return and an opportunity to use those new concepts.

 

After Kirby returned to Atlas [Marvel] in the late 50s, he was on a downward slope with DC due to his problems with Schiff and the subsequent lawsuit over royalties in regard to the newspaper strip SKY MASTERS. Kirby didn't have many choices in where he could find enough work to support his family. Fortunately for Jack he talked to Stan Lee about working for him after Joe Maneely, who had been a workhorse for Lee, just died in a subway accident. Those pages had to be drawn by someone and Jack fit the bill. He was good, creative, dependable and fast. As the work dried up at DC, Kirby was doing more for Atlas. Eventually, Jack was working almost exclusively for Atlas. It was in his best interests to do anything and everything he could in order to keep his position at Atlas. After the super-heroes were a hit and Lee wanted plots? He gave him plots. New characters with potential to create new titles? He was the go to guy. Kirby was protecting his job and not worried about creator's rights or royalties. It was only after years of being told he'd be compensated for the use of his artwork and not receiving anything that Kirby saw his way out of Marvel by returning to DC because Jack Schiff had retired and Carmine Infantino was in charge.

 

Everything Kirby did was to support his family. I'm not faulting him for it, I'm just saying he didn't concern himself with trying to be an art director or editor because it would take time away from the drawing table where he felt his time was best utilized producing pages at the highest page rate Marvel was paying any artist.

 

Which brings us to the lawsuit over the Marvel Super-heroes. Kirby was by definition performing "work-for-hire." He did not create characters and stories "on spec" and submit them to Marvel for publication, according to the courts. That is the crux of the issue. I don't know if Kirby would have filed this lawsuit if he were still alive, but with the billions being generated from concepts he helped to create, it's no surprise his children filed it. Are they entitled to it? So far, the courts have said no. Should Marvel or Disney pay the Kirby heirs for Jack's contributions to the Marvel Universe? Legally, they don't have to pay them anything.

 

At one point in my work career as I was telling someone that "I was not being treated fairly." He told me, "Life is not fair." My repy was, "It should be everyone's goal to make it as fair as possible." Would that the courts and legal system followed my observation.

 

great description of "How things got to the way they are!" I especially like you echoing what I like to point to that Jack was making great money back then being so prolific and it wasnt in his financial interest to take an office job, or go "in-house" like Stan for essentially a cut in pay.

[fantastic_four]

I believe Stan's 10% predates ALL these movies and was still enforceable, (having been written way before it looked like Marvel would ever get a dime in Hollywood)..... but there wasnt any money to go after until Spider-Man 1.

 

The article I linked earlier claims he got that 10% in 1998, and at that time Marvel was already planning the first X-Men film. They hadn't done films before then because Stan and other Marvel execs didn't think special effects could do them justice, but apparently at some point after Jurassic Park and CGI changed the movie business in 1993, they realized the technology had caught up to their visions of superhero powers. So I'm left wondering if you're right or not--did Marvel's lawyers in 1998 not realize the movies they were beginning to embark on could be highly profitable? Seems difficult to believe now.

[fantastic_four]

I believe Stan's 10% predates ALL these movies and was still enforceable, (having been written way before it looked like Marvel would ever get a dime in Hollywood)..... but there wasnt any money to go after until Spider-Man 1.

 

The article I linked earlier claims he got that 10% in 1998, and at that time Marvel was already planning the first X-Men film. They hadn't done films before then because Stan and other Marvel execs didn't think special effects could do them justice, but apparently at some point after Jurassic Park and CGI changed the movie business in 1993, they realized the technology had caught up to their visions of superhero powers. So I'm left wondering if you're right or not--did Marvel's lawyers in 1998 not realize the movies they were beginning to embark on could be highly profitable? Seems difficult to believe now.

 

Wikipedia claims that planning on the X-Men movie began as early as 1994 when Fox first bought the movie rights from Marvel. It also claims that Bryan Singer signed on as director in 1996.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Men_(film_series)#X-Men_.282000.29

 

So Marvel had far more than a hint at the profits to come when they agreed to give Stan 10% of the films in 1998.

[Aman619]

heres the story from the LA Times back in 2005.

guess I have a decent memory!

 

 

California

The company says it will start producing its own films and signs a deal with Paramount.

April 29, 2005|From Bloomberg News

Email

Share

 

Marvel Enterprises Inc., which holds the rights to 5,000 comic book characters, settled a lawsuit with Spider-Man creator Stan Lee over film royalties and plans to start producing its own movies.

 

The company said it had signed an eight-year agreement with Paramount Pictures, a unit of Viacom Inc., to distribute as many as 10 films, according to a statement Thursday. Merrill Lynch & Co. set up a $525-million credit line to fund production, a loan backed by limited rights to 10 Marvel characters.

 

 

 

Developing movies is a shift in strategy for the New York-based company, which has licensed its characters to studios to make films such as "Spider-Man" and "Men in Black." Producing for the big screen will bring more box-office profit, as well as fees from video and cable TV sales, the company said. Marvel may release a "Captain America" film as soon as 2007.

 

"This is nothing short of a major transforming event for Marvel," Vice Chairman Peter Cuneo said in an interview.

 

Under its agreement, Paramount won't contribute production costs, although it will fund advance promotions and advertising, the statement said.

 

The firm Thursday also said first-quarter profit fell 11% to $27.7 million after a $10-million cost to settle with Lee. Lee's attorney declined to comment on how much his client got in total. The creator of superheroes, which include the Incredible Hulk and Daredevil, sued in 2002 for payments related to the first "Spider-Man" movie.

 

Films based on Lee's characters have generated more than $2 billion in revenue in the last five years, according to Boxofficemojo.com, of which Marvel got at least $50 million. Until the settlement, Lee, who is also Marvel's chairman emeritus and gets $1 million in salary, had not received royalties.

 

The agreement ends Lee's rights to future Marvel profit, Cuneo said.

 

Net income fell to 25 cents a share, from $31.3 million, or 27 cents, a year earlier, the statement said. Sales fell to $104 million from $122 million as toy revenue from "Spider-Man 2" and "Lord of the Rings" waned from a year earlier.

 

Marvel shares rose 33 cents to $19.52 on the New York Stock Exchange.

[Tony S]

The fact that Lee had to sue to get what was legally owed him tells us a lot about Marvel. Very interesting and helpful post - thanks!

[fantastic_four]

The fact that Lee had to sue to get what was legally owed him tells us a lot about Marvel. Very interesting and helpful post - thanks!

 

Not sure I agree, but I can't really tell. The article I linked said this about the suit Lee filed:

 

Marvel argued that accountancy rules meant that Lee was only due 10% of the profits after the costs of production and distribution had been deducted.

 

I would think costs of production and distribution would definitely be something that wouldn't be included in a film's profits, but I don't know the low-level details of that case, so I can't say one way or the other.

[fantastic_four]

I believe Stan's 10% predates ALL these movies and was still enforceable, (having been written way before it looked like Marvel would ever get a dime in Hollywood)..... but there wasnt any money to go after until Spider-Man 1.

 

The article I linked earlier claims he got that 10% in 1998, and at that time Marvel was already planning the first X-Men film. They hadn't done films before then because Stan and other Marvel execs didn't think special effects could do them justice, but apparently at some point after Jurassic Park and CGI changed the movie business in 1993, they realized the technology had caught up to their visions of superhero powers. So I'm left wondering if you're right or not--did Marvel's lawyers in 1998 not realize the movies they were beginning to embark on could be highly profitable? Seems difficult to believe now.

 

Wikipedia claims that planning on the X-Men movie began as early as 1994 when Fox first bought the movie rights from Marvel. It also claims that Bryan Singer signed on as director in 1996.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Men_(film_series)#X-Men_.282000.29

 

So Marvel had far more than a hint at the profits to come when they agreed to give Stan 10% of the films in 1998.

 

Another thing about this 1998 Lee contract--every time I hear something about the lawsuit, it only ever mentions that it relates to the Spider-Man films. I'm left wondering whether or not the contract only relates to Spider-Man, and if so, why.

[fantastic_four]

Interesting--Stan Lee's contract from 1998 is available in full text online. It's surprisingly short and highly readable.

 

http://contracts.onecle.com/marvel/lee.emp.1998.11.01.shtml

 

It details his million dollar salary for life as well as that 10% of movies they gave him in exchange for relinquishing all rights to the characters. Interestingly it also explicitly says that Marvel owns the rights to the phrases "Stan's Soap Box," "Stan Lee Presents," and "Excelsior." I see nothing in the language that limits his movie profits to Spider-Man only.

 

I wonder why Marvel did this? Not sure why Stan would have any more right to the characters than Kirby did.

[Ares]

The fact that Lee had to sue to get what was legally owed him tells us a lot about Marvel. Very interesting and helpful post - thanks!

 

Not sure I agree, but I can't really tell. The article I linked said this about the suit Lee filed:

 

Marvel argued that accountancy rules meant that Lee was only due 10% of the profits after the costs of production and distribution had been deducted.

 

I would think costs of production and distribution would definitely be something that wouldn't be included in a film's profits, but I don't know the low-level details of that case, so I can't say one way or the other.

 

With movie accounting a movie can make Billions and still loose money

See Forest Gump and The author

[Tony S]

Interesting--Stan Lee's contract from 1998 is available in full text online. It's surprisingly short and highly readable.

 

http://contracts.onecle.com/marvel/lee.emp.1998.11.01.shtml

 

It details his million dollar salary for life as well as that 10% of movies they gave him in exchange for relinquishing all rights to the characters. Interestingly it also explicitly says that Marvel owns the rights to the phrases "Stan's Soap Box," "Stan Lee Presents," and "Excelsior." I see nothing in the language that limits his movie profits to Spider-Man only.

 

I wonder why Marvel did this? Not sure why Stan would have any more right to the characters than Kirby did.

 

Lee was still alive. Kirby was dead. Probably helped his case some.

[Prince Namor]

Since he chose not to be such an entrepreneur--nor to work partial ownership into his contract like Stan Lee eventually did--then he's out of luck. Odds are pretty good that Kirby had very little leverage circa 1960 and had even tried to work ownership into his contract that Goodman would never have used him.

 

Stan didn't work 'partial ownership' into his contract. You don't know what you're talking about. That's not how it worked, that's not how it happened.

 

I'm not discussing this with you for two reasons--one, you're biased and seeing pretty much what you want to see, and more importantly two, your tone and phrasing is rude as mess. But since you were particularly rude here, I'll clarify. I wasn't claiming he negotiated ownership in the 60s--when I said he "eventually" worked in ownership, it was in his 1998 contract with Marvel where they agreed to give him 10% of profits from movies. He sued about this contract from 2003 to 2005 and eventually won.

 

http://www.out-law.com/page-5238

 

More recently "Stan Lee Media" who Stan has no relationship with anymore has been suing related to that same contract, but they keep losing. I haven't heard of anything affecting the 2005 decision in favor of Stan himself on his negotiated piece of the pie, but if anyone has, please do share.

 

Ok, I'll ask this as politely as I can, "Does Stan Lee own a piece of Marvel?"

 

 

no. Unless he owns stock in Disney/Marvel now as part of his movie rights settlement.

 

Exactly.

 

and gee, when we discussed this last time, you stated that you were not biased for Kirby over Stan. I chose to believe you as arguing the merits of the case, but I see otherwise now. Just another "Stan did nothing" guy.

 

I never said "Stan did nothing." Stan did plenty. His part in the Marvel Universe turning out how it did is invaluable.

 

Its okay with me, I like Kirby and see that he didnt get as good a deal as he should have. But it wasnt Stans fault.

 

Never said it was Stan's fault. I blame Goodman.

Stan HAD fault in it. If it was as collaborative as everyone says, then he should've seen Kirby as a partner he didn't want to lose. But he knew once Jack was gone, he'd never have to write again. The work was done. He's milked it every day since.

 

Also, you stated earlier that as part of your argument that Stan did nothing for SpiderMan as the "Spider" character motifs were common. But, as editor and write of the -script, he knew enough about the character that he pulled it from Jack because ditko "got" the essence of what he (Stan) thought Spider-man/Parker should have been. And he wrote all the dialogue (at least I dont think anyone has argued that Kirby or Ditko did?) and, having read them each month as they came out, it was the WORDS as much as the pictures that made Spidey stand out.

 

According to Ditko, he changed what Stan and Jack gave him of the character, which was essentially, not much different than the ideas that had been passed around for a while.

He's also written that (it's guesstimated), and verified by people working at Marvel at the time, that around issue #26 until he left, Ditko turned in each issue of Amazing Spider-man with no input from Stan whatsoever.

 

Yeah, and it was DC who "killed" (sabotaged?) the Fourth World? Plenty of us were there. The ideas were powerful, but the writing was unreadable. And DC desperately needed Kirby to vault them back on top of Marvel back then!! No way they wanted to see it fail. But fail it did... quickly. You have to ask yourself why, now that Jack was completely unfiltered (by the do-nothing Stan Lee) he failed so badly....

 

I never said they killed or sabotaged it.

It is interesting to keep in mind, that If the Marvel Universe had been cut off at Fantastic Four #12, it'd have less interest in it today than the concepts of the Fourth World do.

 

They both contributed to Marvels success. Get used to it.

 

Agree 100%.

 

Unfortunately Kirby's stake in that success was cut off by his actions as much as by the way things were in the industry back then. Stan stayed loyal to Marvel and his rewards were much greater as a result. Had Stan bolted for DC like Jack did, do you think he'd be anything other than another Gardner Fox or Carmine Infantino today?

 

Keep in mind, that after Ditko left, and Ditko almost convinced Jack to leave at the same time, Jack STAYED and tried to work things out. Wanted to work things out. Marvel just strung him along.

 

Stan wasn't going to leave. Stan's cousin was married to the owner of the company. According to Lee, Goodman promised that Stan would be looked after, because he was 'family'.

 

IMO, it was Jacks tough guy ego that did him in. But thats just me.

 

Now that's just silly. I've never heard anyone talk like that about Jack's personality.

 

My sense is that at some point in time after Stan is gone, Disney will honor Kirby more, as a way to (safely) attach themselves to the legend of Jack Kirby, who will be recognized as a great creator during the creation of a true American media form.

 

Hope you're right, but I doubt it.

[Prince Namor]

I don't think it's necessary or reasonable to minimize Lee's contribution to Marvel. As a manager myself for 30+ years, you get plenty of blame if things go wrong and deserve part of the credit if things go well. Lee did have the smarts to institute a very collaborative approach to stories and characters at Marvel. And certainly he wrote a lot or even most of the dialogue back in the day.

 

The plots on most early Marvels absolutely sucked--most early 60s Marvel comics are pretty unreadable today because of that. I guess that's mostly on Ditko and Kirby--or if you prefer Lee for giving plots to artists who weren't great writers. Or maybe Stan is to blame for coming up with bad ideas in his story outlines. But Lee's dialogue is fantastic. Scintillating. That's because he's just a great communicator, and the same skills that make him such a great self-promoter and leader are the same ones that made him so great at writing dialogue. Lee is my favorite writer of dialogue in comics until Bendis came along. The other major and innovative contribution Lee brought to the table was in humanizing his characters. I haven't seen compelling evidence that came from Kirby, Ditko, or anybody else. Peter Parker worked because he was vulnerable and nerdy and someone that almost anyone could relate to as having similar problems that they did. Lee did that.

 

[Aman619]

My take was always that back in the 70s, after relinquishing all daily control over the comics, Stan saw a future in LA pushing Marvel to all other media, mainly films and animation. I suppose that he pitched it to his bosses then that he would uproot his family, and devote himself totally to this end, and since he'd be more effective than hiring an agent to do it for them, and that anyone else would be less skilled at selling Marvel AND cost more than 10%, that Stan got that 10% as an incentive should he be successful.

 

He did sell many of the characters for $50K here and there to Golan Globus (a big Israeli producer at the time who invented the strategy of selling world wide territories BEFORE he shot the films, thereby being profit before spending a dime!) and others (leading to the epic battle to untangle the rights for the Spider-Man movie years later!) .. but, in reality, he failed to generate any real profits, so his 10% wasn't worth anything (or it was and he actually collected a few small checks in the 70s. If he did they would have been very helpful in winning his eventual BIG case 20 years later.)

 

Anyway, Stan got the contract language he wanted. It came in handy.

 

Id like to think, in my fantasy world of harmony and happy endings, that had Kirby stayed on at Marvel, he AND Stan would have been selling the characters. Jack was already well established in Hollywood animation circles. together. (Who knows, maybe Jack's friends nixed Stan's forays for Jack since Jack was cut off from his creations??)

 

SO I see the 10% never as an ownership stake, but a sales incentive for Stan acting as Marvels (in-house) agent in Hollywood.

 

 

[Aman619]

I don't think it's necessary or reasonable to minimize Lee's contribution to Marvel. As a manager myself for 30+ years, you get plenty of blame if things go wrong and deserve part of the credit if things go well. Lee did have the smarts to institute a very collaborative approach to stories and characters at Marvel. And certainly he wrote a lot or even most of the dialogue back in the day.

 

The plots on most early Marvels absolutely sucked--most early 60s Marvel comics are pretty unreadable today because of that. I guess that's mostly on Ditko and Kirby--or if you prefer Lee for giving plots to artists who weren't great writers. Or maybe Stan is to blame for coming up with bad ideas in his story outlines. But Lee's dialogue is fantastic. Scintillating. That's because he's just a great communicator, and the same skills that make him such a great self-promoter and leader are the same ones that made him so great at writing dialogue. Lee is my favorite writer of dialogue in comics until Bendis came along. The other major and innovative contribution Lee brought to the table was in humanizing his characters. I haven't seen compelling evidence that came from Kirby, Ditko, or anybody else. Peter Parker worked because he was vulnerable and nerdy and someone that almost anyone could relate to as having similar problems that they did. Lee did that.

 

 

wow. you cant even give Stan his dialogue??? : )

[Prince Namor]

My take was always that back in the 70s, after relinquishing all daily control over the comics, Stan saw a future in LA pushing Marvel to all other media, mainly films and animation. I suppose that he pitched it to his bosses then that he would uproot his family, and devote himself totally to this end, and since he'd be more effective than hiring an agent to do it for them, and that anyone else would be less skilled at selling Marvel AND cost more than 10%, that Stan got that 10% as an incentive should he be successful.

 

He did sell many of the characters for $50K here and there to Golan Globus (a big Israeli producer at the time who invented the strategy of selling world wide territories BEFORE he shot the films, thereby being profit before spending a dime!) and others (leading to the epic battle to untangle the rights for the Spider-Man movie years later!) .. but, in reality, he failed to generate any real profits, so his 10% wasn't worth anything (or it was and he actually collected a few small checks in the 70s. If he did they would have been very helpful in winning his eventual BIG case 20 years later.)

 

Anyway, Stan got the contract language he wanted. It came in handy.

 

Id like to think, in my fantasy world of harmony and happy endings, that had Kirby stayed on at Marvel, he AND Stan would have been selling the characters. Jack was already well established in Hollywood animation circles. together. (Who knows, maybe Jack's friends nixed Stan's forays for Jack since Jack was cut off from his creations??)

 

SO I see the 10% never as an ownership stake, but a sales incentive for Stan acting as Marvels (in-house) agent in Hollywood.

 

 

Stan got paid by Marvel, to represent Marvel. Whatever his 10% deal was on movie rights was outside of that. Stan was a millionaire in the early 70's from Marvel Comics.

 

And I have no problem with a fantasy world of harmony and happy endings, where BOTH Kirby and Lee are successful from it all. I'd take that any day.

[fantastic_four]

My take was always that back in the 70s, after relinquishing all daily control over the comics, Stan saw a future in LA pushing Marvel to all other media, mainly films and animation. I suppose that he pitched it to his bosses then that he would uproot his family, and devote himself totally to this end, and since he'd be more effective than hiring an agent to do it for them, and that anyone else would be less skilled at selling Marvel AND cost more than 10%, that Stan got that 10% as an incentive should he be successful.

 

He did sell many of the characters for $50K here and there to Golan Globus (a big Israeli producer at the time who invented the strategy of selling world wide territories BEFORE he shot the films, thereby being profit before spending a dime!) and others (leading to the epic battle to untangle the rights for the Spider-Man movie years later!) .. but, in reality, he failed to generate any real profits, so his 10% wasn't worth anything (or it was and he actually collected a few small checks in the 70s. If he did they would have been very helpful in winning his eventual BIG case 20 years later.)

 

Anyway, Stan got the contract language he wanted. It came in handy.

 

Id like to think, in my fantasy world of harmony and happy endings, that had Kirby stayed on at Marvel, he AND Stan would have been selling the characters. Jack was already well established in Hollywood animation circles. together. (Who knows, maybe Jack's friends nixed Stan's forays for Jack since Jack was cut off from his creations??)

 

SO I see the 10% never as an ownership stake, but a sales incentive for Stan acting as Marvels (in-house) agent in Hollywood.

 

But why in 1998? Marvel had already sold the rights to all its characters to various studios long before then. Remember that's why the cruddy FF film in the 90s was made, purely to retain the rights bought from Marvel.

[Aman619]

 

Hope you're right, but I doubt it.

 

I think that Kirby's legend is cemented to the Marvel story as firmly as Stan's is. The variance is generally which group of people we talk about. To the man in the street, Jack is more of a forgotten man, yes. But to artists, creators, people who shape things, Jack is rightly esteemed for what he accomplished in the medium of comics. As comics characters exhibit greater and greater influence in all media, his place in its genesis will always be there.

 

Thats more than any of us have to say for our time and efforts.

 

Van Gogh never sold a painting, and he is more widely known than most of his peers. But I realize thats a stretch of an analogy....

[Prince Namor]

I don't think it's necessary or reasonable to minimize Lee's contribution to Marvel. As a manager myself for 30+ years, you get plenty of blame if things go wrong and deserve part of the credit if things go well. Lee did have the smarts to institute a very collaborative approach to stories and characters at Marvel. And certainly he wrote a lot or even most of the dialogue back in the day.

 

The plots on most early Marvels absolutely sucked--most early 60s Marvel comics are pretty unreadable today because of that. I guess that's mostly on Ditko and Kirby--or if you prefer Lee for giving plots to artists who weren't great writers. Or maybe Stan is to blame for coming up with bad ideas in his story outlines. But Lee's dialogue is fantastic. Scintillating. That's because he's just a great communicator, and the same skills that make him such a great self-promoter and leader are the same ones that made him so great at writing dialogue. Lee is my favorite writer of dialogue in comics until Bendis came along. The other major and innovative contribution Lee brought to the table was in humanizing his characters. I haven't seen compelling evidence that came from Kirby, Ditko, or anybody else. Peter Parker worked because he was vulnerable and nerdy and someone that almost anyone could relate to as having similar problems that they did. Lee did that.

 

 

wow. you cant even give Stan his dialogue??? : )

 

I like a lot of it. It's entertaining.

But a lot of it is really corny though. And a lot of it is ridiculously over emotive and unnecessary.

 

I'm mean really.... read a Stan Lee Marvel Comic out loud to someone. Or read it as if it's a movie -script.

It's really kind of embarrassing. There's a reason Stan didn't do any real writing outside of comics....

 

I always liked it in the context of a 'comic book' story, though I find going back and trying to read it now, I tend to skim over parts of it....

[bluechip]

Yep. I don't think people are looking at the big picture here--if a person working for a large company had a copyright on everything they created while working under contract or on a salary from that company, they could leave that company and the company would in many cases cease to exist.

 

No one asked for a copyright. Back before he left Marvel, Jack just wanted a contract. He wanted Goodman to make good on his PROMISES.

Later on he just wanted his artwork back.

 

Kirby was free to be an entrepreneur and create comics all by himself, but that's pretty difficult to do on a venture as large and complex as creating comics, manufacturing them on a large scale, and distributing them around the world.

 

Yeah. Ok.

 

Since he chose not to be such an entrepreneur--nor to work partial ownership into his contract like Stan Lee eventually did--then he's out of luck. Odds are pretty good that Kirby had very little leverage circa 1960 and had even tried to work ownership into his contract that Goodman would never have used him.

 

Stan didn't work 'partial ownership' into his contract. You don't know what you're talking about. That's not how it worked, that's not how it happened.

 

I like Kirby's art and the contributions he made to the characters, but it was a highly collaborative process by Stan's design, and there are other artists who could have helped Stan develop the characters he came up.

 

Stan Lee is a copycat. That's his ONLY creative ability. Stan created NOTHING before he worked with Jack Kirby, and he created NOTHING after he worked with Jack Kirby.

It only stands to reason he didn't create anything while working with Jack Kirby.

Even something like the Fantastic Four if you want to give Stan 50/50 credit, let's look at where the ideas came from:

Stan wanted to make a team like the Justice League to compete with DC.

Jack wanted to take the team ideas he'd already created (Challengers of the Unknown) and expand upon them.

Which team is the early FF more comparable to?

wWhat exactly did Stan contribute?

 

Ideas for 'The Spider' were around, and used as a part of comics and ideas for comics for years. Stan and Jack's idea for it had a web gun and sounded like a traditional superhero. Ditko is what made it what it is.

 

For 20 years Stan created nothing in the business, and in the 40 years since has created nothing in the business. He was a supernova burst of ideas for 10 years and then just decided to give it up?

 

Stan is a man of very meager creative talent. Period. But he is a great showman.

Take Kirby and Ditko out of the equation and what did Stan ever create of substance with or without anyone else?

It doesn't even have to be something that sold tremendously well, it could be something that was critically well received.

What did he create?

 

It's easy to try to take credit from Stan

,

 

Yes. It is. Because he can't draw.

And no matter how many ideas he comes up with, they are just words until an artist brings them to life.

 

In film, do we celebrate the writer? Or the director?

 

The director of course, it's his vision that brings the film to life.

The writing we consider separate from it, and there are great writers for film.

But because the director makes changes, and creates the vision of the written word, and makes small (or large) changes to the story or dialogue to fit that vision... we celebrate the DIRECTOR as the creative visionary of film.

 

but remember that the reason Kirby and Ditko contributed so much to the Marvel characters is because Stan specifically set up the process to be collaborative to bring the best ideas out of everyone involved. That's probably Stan's biggest contribution to comics--a highly collaborative creation process.

 

It's been established, from Stan himself, that sometimes, he would just say, "Let's bring Dr. Doom back!", and the artist would go and layout (i.e. write and draw) the entire story.

Yeah. Highly collaborative.

What that 'collaborative' process is all about, is making the artist do the majority of the work, so the writer can 'tweak it' and then say it's 'collaborative'.

There's a reason Kirby and Ditko fought for writing credit. Because they didn't feel Stan's input was really of much use.

It wasn't.

His 'editing' was. But not his writing.

 

Even his whole 'bullpen' 'fan club' schtick isn't something he came up with. He took a lot of ideas from the heyday of EC Comics, including the showcasing of the artists', and answering letters, 'bullpen' 'fan club' etc.

 

Stan collaborated by accident. He was there. He was in charge.

Jack was a creative bulldozer, he would've created anyway.

Without Stan Lee the Marvel Universe wouldn't have existed as it is.

Without Jack Kirby the Marvel Universe would've never existed at all.

 

It's easy to agree that Kirby got less than he deserved, but it's hard not to see posts like this as crossing the line and charging on for miles beyond it.

 

There is a disdain here not just for Lee but for all writers. Directors are celebrated more than writers in filmed entertainment, but that's not because it's objectively and universally deserved, as this implies.

 

I could go on to say that Screenwriters can, and do, describe shots, sets, character attitudes, etc with intricate detail to such extent that any director need only know how to read the -script and pass along instructions to the crew. Directors need not even be talented at putting it all together, so long as they commit to massive coverage and have a great DP, great editor, great SFX people, great actors, etc, and the director will get credit for all the great choices made by those people.

 

But, based on the absolutist nature of this poster, I think any defense of writers will be utterly lost upon him.\

 

Oh, and in the comics world, it can be argued that the editor is most akin to the Director. Or, at the very least, Producer.

 

 

 

You misunderstood.

I have a great deal of respect for writers. Anyone who can take a blank page and create, using only words, is, to me, as talented, in a different way of course, as someone who can take a blank page and draw a beautiful picture.

I just don't think Stan Lee was either of those guys.

 

If you spent some time with Stan talking about stories and concepts, you'd have a different impression. He's got all the signs of a man who's spent his life trucking in story and character. A fount of ideas, including many bad ones. But enough good ones to have earned the title of co-creator of all those characters. Bear in mind that the early development of these characters is not unlike developing a TV series or film franchise. Once it's created, any talented person can take it over and be the sole writer of an installment or even many years' worth of installments. But the initial creation requires a special talent at bringing together character traits, situations, back-story, etc -- all of which was, in Lee's case, done with much input from others. But while Lee can claim half of many memorable characters, few memorable characters were created or co-created by his other Marvel partners (Kirby being the biggest exception, but even his tally of timeless billion dollar characters is not as deep as his most ardent supporters would suggest. Captain America's a bonafide multimedia superstar. Not so much the likes of the Eternals, Devil Dinosaur and Kamandi (the latter of which is just one example of Kirby's output that should give pause when accusing Stan Lee, and only Stan Lee, of being a 'copycat.')

 

[Prince Namor]

Hope you're right, but I doubt it.

 

I think that Kirby's legend is cemented to the Marvel story as firmly as Stan's is. The variance is generally which group of people we talk about. To the man in the street, Jack is more of a forgotten man, yes. But to artists, creators, people who shape things, Jack is rightly esteemed for what he accomplished in the medium of comics. As comics characters exhibit greater and greater influence in all media, his place in its genesis will always be there.

 

Thats more than any of us have to say for our time and efforts.

 

Van Gogh never sold a painting, and he is more widely known than most of his peers. But I realize thats a stretch of an analogy....

 

Some will remember.... some won't... but.... yeah, I like to think 'his place in the genesis will always be there.'

Well said.